Cover not available
Article published In:
Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
Vol. 1:1 (2019) ► pp.90–104

A note on the emotive origins of syntax

 | University of Konstanz | CNRS-IKER
In this note, I ask what (if any) linguistic means above the word level might have already been in place before our full-blown syntactic capacity involving recursive Merge has evolved. I argue that the ‘pre-Merge era’ might have been characterized by paratactic emotive utterances comparable to root small clauses in modern languages. At the end of this contribution, this new emotive perspective on so-called ‘living linguistic fossils’ is extended to the core syntactic property of displacement, which features an augmentation strategy in the form of multiple copies that is reminiscent of doubling and reduplication processes involved in conveying expressive meaning components.
Keywords: evolution of language, expressive meaning, paratactic stage, small clauses, syntax
Article outline
  • 1.The emotive use as a secondary use of language
  • 2.The paratactic stage and its connection to the emotive use of language
    • 2.1Small clauses as ‘living fossils’
    • 2.2The emotive use as the primary use of small clauses
  • 3.Conclusion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 24 April 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00005.tro
References (48)
References
Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N. (2016). Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and Species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The origins of syntactic language. In: Tallerman, M., Gibson, K. R. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 456–468.Google Scholar
Börjars, K., Vincent, N. (2011). Grammaticalization and directionality. In: Narrog, H., Heine, B. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 162–176.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions of Information Theory IT-2, 31, 113–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Minimalist inquiries. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J. (eds.): Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Google Scholar
(2007). Approaching UG from below. In: Sauerland, U., Gärtner, H.-M. (eds.): Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–29.Google Scholar
(2009). Opening remarks. In: Piattelli-Palmarini, M., Uriagereka, J., Salaburu, P. (eds.): Of Minds and Language: A Dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13–43.Google Scholar
(2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 1301, 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. (2011). Small clauses. Language and Linguistics Compass, 51, 748–763. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corver, N. (2013). Affective information packaging in the nominal domain. DGfS Conference 2013, Unversity of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 2981, 1569–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kuteva, T. (2007). The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N., Pietroski, P. M. (2009). Basic operations: Minimal syntax-semantics. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 81, 113–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statements: Linguistics and poetics. In: Sebeok, T. A. (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 350–377.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D., Rothmayr, A. (2008). The syntax and semantics of indefinite determiner doubling constructions in varieties of German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 111, 95–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1999). What is Meaning? Explorations in the Theory of Meaning as Use. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Larson, B. (2015). Minimal search as a restriction on Merge. Lingua, 1561, 57–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narita, H. (2014). Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2017). Form and function in the evolution of grammar. Cognitive Science, 411, 259–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niebuhr, O. (2010). On the phonetics of intensifying emphasis in German. Phonetica, 671, 170–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poletto, C., Zanuttini, R. (2013). Emphasis as reduplication: Evidence from sì che/no che sentences. Lingua, 1281, 124–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2007). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics, 331, 165–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Conventional implicature and expressive content. In: Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., Portner, P. (eds.): Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Vol. 31. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2516–2536.Google Scholar
Potts, C., Roeper, T. (2006). The narrowing acquisition path: From expressive small clauses to declaratives. In: Progovac, L., Paesani, K., Casielles, E., Barton, E. (eds.): The Syntax of Non-Sententials: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Progovac, L. (2006). The syntax of nonsententials: Small clauses and phrases at the root. In: Progovac, L., Paesani, K., Casielles, E., Barton, E. (eds.): The Syntax of Non-Sententials: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 33–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Layering of grammar: Vestiges of proto-syntax in present-day languages. In: Sampson, G., Gil, D., Trudgill, P. (eds.): Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 203–212.Google Scholar
(2015). Evolutionary Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic Theory and the Acquistion of English Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U., Trotzke, A. (2011). Biolinguistic perspectives on recursion: Introduction to the special issue. Biolinguistics, 51, 1–9.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. A. (1981). Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tallerman, M. (2014). No syntax saltation in language evolution. Language Sciences, 461, 207–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terrace, H. S. (1979). Nim. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The ultra-social animal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 441, 187–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). A Natural History of Human Morality. Harvard: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The Grammar of Emphasis: From Information Structure to the Expressive Dimension. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, A., Bader, M., Frazier, L. (2013). Third factors and the performance interface in language design. Biolinguistics, 71, 1–34.Google Scholar
Trotzke, A., Turco, G. (2015). The grammatical reflexes of emphasis: Evidence from German wh-questions. Lingua, 1681, 37–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, A., Zwart, J.-W. (2014). The complexity of narrow syntax: Minimalism, representational economy, and simplest Merge. In: Newmeyer, F. J., Preston, L. B. (eds.): Measuring Grammatical Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 128–147.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (2008). Syntactic Anchors: On Semantic Structuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Lacheret-Dujour, Anne, Guillaume Desagulier, Mathilde de Saint-Léger, Karin Heidlmayr & Frédéric Isel
2023. The syntactic marking of emotional intensity: Psycholinguistic evidence from French. Lingua 294 ► pp. 103570 ff. DOI logo
Sineokova, Tatiana Nikolaevna, Svetlana Evgenyevna Rakhmankulova, Ekaterina Ivanovna Belyaeva, G. Sorokoumova & T. Grob
2021. Syntactic means of positive emotions representation in American and British drama. SHS Web of Conferences 122 ► pp. 01004 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.